It seems the super community is asking for busoni/polx to sadd SUPER
If & when busoni adds Super will it help compensate for the things already done?
My clients did what any reasonable investor would do with half a brain perform
Due diligence before making any decisions.
They also felt what busoni did may have been a "bit pre-mature",
but not without giving him the recognition he deserves
For lookin into something that may have seem a bit suspect.
the code busoni found in super coin, was also found in cinni and silk coin he added them no problem not only cunni and sc, in many pos coins. And it's not a real problem, or even a problem. |
|
|
|
busoni!
please make compensation for those lost monye!!!!!
maynot happen. just add supercoin for free trade 3 days. IT is difficult for them to admit stupidity. not focus on people guys. Busoni may handle this later. It depends on him, he do has the right to choose coins. Take it easy. |
|
|
|
my wallet can't display the anno feature. I have make the conf file and use the testnode as the OP list, but it make no difference. I am on windows 7 system.  you download the wrong version . |
|
|
|
|
Anyway polo do a bad advisement on supercoin. But it is still a advisement.
|
|
|
|
busoni!
please make compensation for those lost monye!!!!!
maynot happen. just add supercoin for free trade 3 days. |
|
|
|
why did not you try to contact me before for explanation
Easy answer: because someone is stupid  focus on problem, not people guys. I understand you anyway. |
|
|
|
Poloniex has decided not to list SuperCoin because of some disturbing things we turned up in our code review. I would like to draw your attention to this part of the ANN post: - Total PoW coins will be 18.2 millions.
- Total coins (including PoS) will be about 50,000,000.
And these parts of the source code: if (dAmount <= 0.0 || dAmount > 150000000.0)
static const int64_t MAX_MONEY = 150000000 * COIN;
static const int64_t POW_MAX_MONEY = 50000000 * COIN;
MAX_MONEY is pretty much what it sounds like. This means that the actual maximum supply of SuperCoin is 150 million, not 50 million. Furthermore, the maximum PoW coins is 50 million, rather than the claimed 18.2 million. The 150 million number appears twice in the code, so it can hardly be considered an accident. We did not find evidence of an existing hidden premine, but extra coins could potentially be minted all at once at the end of the PoW phase, sent to exchanges via the "anon" feature, and dumped. We have other concerns about the coin, particularly concerning the proposed method of anonymity, but the shenanigans with the maximum supply is sufficient for us to reject this coin. why did not you try to contact me before for explanation busoni is a honest and respectable guy. Be patient dev, believe he can handle this correctly! |
|
|
|
has poloniex contacted you
no i dont see any pm from him. I think he has to apologize from community. no way, no PM, that is not cool. damn you went offline at the right time too. you could have controlled the fall if you were. whats done is done looking forward now anyway dev is innocent . They need rest after release the Anon wallet! |
|
|
|
This is a report of my tests with anon wallet in testnet:
Anon feature in testnet working fine. The sent coin isplit into 2 or 3 parts (from the split amounts, looks random to me, maybe some special algorithms), sometimes no split for small amounts, then the receiving wallet get the sent amount, in a single value (original sent value), quite fast. I checked a few transactions, no pattern found, each time the address that sent the amount to receiving wallet is different, looks like randomly generated addresses.
Very cool, excellent job, devs!!!
Thanks for the test report. The released anon wallet version is 1.2.1-a ("a" means anon). It includes all the V1.2 changes. You can use it for regular SUPER wallet too (just change config testnet=0). The anon features are disabled now for regular network (though the checkbox still there, but if you check and try to send, an error message window will be displayed)., you are allowed only to use regular send at this time for regular SUPER network. let me explain in a different way if transfer below 1 SUPER such as 0.099 it goes as 1 part. if transfer over 10.000 such as 10001 it rejected by popup message Transfers 1 SUPER and over 1 send as 2 or 3 pieces as randomly we could do 4 but its harder to follow in transaction list If mixer node is down or not reachable by you local reasons then you see warning message you can come to ask me for extra node in that case we made these during the tests if you have any advice here let us know will do some test when I am back home. |
|
|
|
lets see how goes super has great trolls ... Fun to read. dev be patient, busoni used to be a honest and respectable guy, but he did make a mistake on super coin. Send him a PM and explain this. do not be angry with such thing. We will back you. |
|
|
|
This is a report of my tests with anon wallet in testnet:
Anon feature in testnet working fine. The sent coin isplit into 2 or 3 parts (from the split amounts, looks random to me, maybe some special algorithms), sometimes no split for small amounts, then the receiving wallet get the sent amount, in a single value (original sent value), quite fast. I checked a few transactions, no pattern found, each time the address that sent the amount to receiving wallet is different, looks like randomly generated addresses.
Very cool, excellent job, devs!!!
great! |
|
|
|
bosuni, how about you start a vote on poloniex, and let public people decide whether you should list supercoin?  ? |
|
|
|
All we know for sure is that Polo went with the MAX_MONEY line as the headline reason to reject this coin, which has been debunked. The OP ends with this: We have other concerns about the coin, particularly concerning the proposed method of anonymity, but the shenanigans with the maximum supply is sufficient for us to reject this coin.
The anon feature of the wallet was just released a few hours ago and is in it's alpha stage, so it's not even an official feature yet. So what's left? Code copying? I'm no programmer myself but as far as I know, every programmer "borrows" code. I'm sure busoni is a great guy, but it's starting to smell like some back peddling in here. it seems they do not know how Anon features works? |
|
|
|
intersting to read through the recent event, surprised that even an exchange owner has so little knowledge on the coin code. I'd keep my mouth closed for something I don't understand instead of showing how stupid I am unprofessional. |
|
|
|
Thanks everyone for helping and explaining the details. As we said, we welcome anyone to review the code and find issues so we can improve.
I can ensure you that SUPER dev team is a very qualified team, we know what we are doing. We just delivered anon features (enabled only for testnet now), please test it and give us feedback and help us to fix issues. I saw a few tested and happy with it, we need more people to test. If you need testnet coins please PM me or supercointeam, and give us your testnet address, we will send to you.
As we previously mentioned, we are also working on the phase-2 algorithm now, and the progress is very promising. Together, we will make SUPER a lot more SUPER!
thank you for the update! |
|
|
|
can i aks my BTC donation back in the Hacker event? busoni you are a honest guy, i like you. hope you can handle this tough thing correctly. thanks  You actually can, I don't hold people to that. It is pertinent that the coin was hard forked to change the maximum supply. We have not examined all the changes made, but this may strengthen the case for the MAX_MONEY issue being negligence rather than laying the foundation for a nefarious plan. Nevertheless, the variable could have been deliberately left unchanged for the same reasons, and in any case, it indicates sloppy coding that opens the coin up to, for example, a much larger double spend attack. We're going to look into this further, but an apology may be in order for not coming to dev privately first. There is also the issue of the anon implementation proposed, which even by the dev's admission is highly vulnerable to "cheating." I would never list a coin that relied on the honesty of people operating a mixing pool. It would be trivial for them to steal coins and impossible to prove that they had done so. i do hope supercoin dev can communicate with you directly. but he is sleep now. i hope you can handle this correctly. about the cheating node, it seems XC coin and Darkcoin also has similar issues, Please check this. XC coin use Xnode, in first stage it’s also have some cheating problem. dark coin use masternode which also not a 100% safeway. Although Bitcoin survive the 51% attack several days ago. busoni, my friend, Please think this again or wait for the Supercoin dev give your a reply later, no need to make a rush decision. thank you very much. i will keep Support Poloniex. busoni, my friend where are you? Please do something. |
|
|
|
This here thread is funny, but sorta scary. It's obvious that neither busoni or Cryptsy, or any of their cheerleaders know shit about how cryptocoin code actually works. Hey geniuses, leave the code for programmers--you'll get hurt in there.  busoni is a respectable guy, hope he can handle this. |
|
|
|
supercoindev on line now!can i aks my BTC donation back in the Hacker event? busoni you are a honest guy, i like you. hope you can handle this tough thing correctly. thanks You actually can, I don't hold people to that. It is pertinent that the coin was hard forked to change the maximum supply. We have not examined all the changes made, but this may strengthen the case for the MAX_MONEY issue being negligence rather than laying the foundation for a nefarious plan. Nevertheless, the variable could have been deliberately left unchanged for the same reasons, and in any case, it indicates sloppy coding that opens the coin up to, for example, a much larger double spend attack. We're going to look into this further, but an apology may be in order for not coming to dev privately first. There is also the issue of the anon implementation proposed, which even by the dev's admission is highly vulnerable to "cheating." I would never list a coin that relied on the honesty of people operating a mixing pool. It would be trivial for them to steal coins and impossible to prove that they had done so. I don't agree with you, these parameters are simply irrelevent. We did not miss them, we simply think there's no need. We welcome anyone to review our code, and we are happy to discuss with anyone. But blunders like this are not agreed. Your ignorance simply caused a lot unnecessary confusion. Should you contact us, we would have explained all to you.
|
|
|
|
can i aks my BTC donation back in the Hacker event? busoni you are a honest guy, i like you. hope you can handle this tough thing correctly. thanks You actually can, I don't hold people to that. It is pertinent that the coin was hard forked to change the maximum supply. We have not examined all the changes made, but this may strengthen the case for the MAX_MONEY issue being negligence rather than laying the foundation for a nefarious plan. Nevertheless, the variable could have been deliberately left unchanged for the same reasons, and in any case, it indicates sloppy coding that opens the coin up to, for example, a much larger double spend attack. We're going to look into this further, but an apology may be in order for not coming to dev privately first. There is also the issue of the anon implementation proposed, which even by the dev's admission is highly vulnerable to "cheating." I would never list a coin that relied on the honesty of people operating a mixing pool. It would be trivial for them to steal coins and impossible to prove that they had done so. hi busoni, dev online now, communicate with him directly. thank you very much busoni. you are a respectable guy. |
|
|
|
can i aks my BTC donation back in the Hacker event? busoni you are a honest guy, i like you. hope you can handle this tough thing correctly. thanks You actually can, I don't hold people to that. It is pertinent that the coin was hard forked to change the maximum supply. We have not examined all the changes made, but this may strengthen the case for the MAX_MONEY issue being negligence rather than laying the foundation for a nefarious plan. Nevertheless, the variable could have been deliberately left unchanged for the same reasons, and in any case, it indicates sloppy coding that opens the coin up to, for example, a much larger double spend attack. We're going to look into this further, but an apology may be in order for not coming to dev privately first. There is also the issue of the anon implementation proposed, which even by the dev's admission is highly vulnerable to "cheating." I would never list a coin that relied on the honesty of people operating a mixing pool. It would be trivial for them to steal coins and impossible to prove that they had done so. I don't agree with you, these parameters are simply irrelevent. We did not miss them, we simply think there's no need. We welcome anyone to review our code, and we are happy to discuss with anyone. But blunders like this are not agreed. Your ignorance simply caused a lot unnecessary confusion. Should you contact us, we would have explained all to you. be patient, busoni is a very honest and respectable guy, i know him. but it seems he has some misunderstanding on Supercoin coin. it is understandable, everybody will make a mistake . also it seems supercoin dev also make some mistake on the ANN thread. thanks |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
